User talk:Atlantic306/Archive 2

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

WARNING SECTION
This is a propaganda page obviously written by this small company in Canada. They work mainly through crowdfunding. They consistently repeat the same pattern: they take more orders than they can manage, they don't respect their announced delivery times, they start new campaigns while they are still glued in managing the previous one. Their tops are made of different materials and they are nice looking but they are very poor spinners. Such a page should not exist in Wikipedia. Most of the references do not satisfy the Wikipedia criteria. END WARNING SECTION

I don't understand why this warning has been repeatedly deleted by Atlantic306. It is a fact that almost all the references in this article are commercial material from the ForeverSpin company, taken from their website or their Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaigns. As for the content of the article, most of it is a copy of those references. As for what I say about the behaviour of this company, it can easily be verified from the same Kickstarter and Indiegogo references, section comments: almost all the comments are complaints about late deliveries (6 months), non-answered emails, packages that never arrived. Repeatedly qualifying such campaigns as "successful" is therefore a very subjective and debatable point of view.
 * The point is the content you added can only be allowed if it is referenced to reliable sources which it is not. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary: it is referenced by exactly the same sources as the article, as mentioned above. Maybe you should take time reading them before applying such censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:537:1400:9461:D234:967B:1F3 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2A01: What you claim about ForeverSpin's funding methods may well be true. If it is, and you can cite references to support your claim, you would be justified in adding referenced content to the article. But instead, you have been adding a boldface "warning" message, with no references, to the top of the article. Maproom (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I see what you mean. I don't have time now, but I'll do it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:537:1400:9461:D234:967B:1F3 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

James L Gelvin
I see that you reinserted a bunch of material into the James L. Gelvin article. First of all, it seems to me that none of it is notable and none of it is properly sourced (it all goes back to the professor's own CV). And, my impression from discussions on other academic's pages (for instance see this israeli professor's talk page) is that including resume items for their own sake doesn't fly. As I've made clear on the Gelvin page, I'm inclined to push for deletion due to the lack of notability. Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Bibliography and list of articles is acceptable on academics pages irrespective of one discussion, I removed the extra non published matter which I agree was too much Atlantic306 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Curious about a wiki policy for that. Because it came up elsewhere, and others were asserting quite forcefully to the contrary. I would love to be able to say something constructive there. Thanks! Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, it was poorly formatted. --Jennica ✿ / talk 05:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Dinesh Sharma (actor)
Dinesh Sharma (actor) < -- is this a work in progress? the formatting and the titles are pretty bad. I'm looking through your contributions and finding a lot of discrepancies.. formatting flaws and spaces that shouldn't be there (gaps between articles), just little details that pop out at me. I see you are correcting a lot of good stuff though --Jennica ✿ / talk 05:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC
 * Thanks, will try and improve and will look at the Dinesh Sharma article Atlantic306 (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Thanks, you're welcolme Atlantic306 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice for Hinterschllenberg page deletion request
Hey Atlantic306, I noticed that you recently removed my deletion request on the page Hinterschellenberg a small village in Liechtenstein. You did add a comment with your edit, but I didn't understand it. Could you please clarify what you meant (I left a short note on its talk page). I listed as the reason that Hinterschellenberg wasn't an exclusive hamlet, as its population is quite small and isn't recognized as a village – such as Steg, Lawena, Mauren, Nendeln, Bendern, and Ebenholz – by the Liechtenstein government or reputable mapmakers like Collins or Dorling Kindersley. If the page is indeed retained, it should definitely be completely refurbished, updated, refined, and enlarged. And we would have to find editors with the time to create and perfect more than 100 different towns or settlements in order to meet the standards, guidelines, and requirements that Wikipedia has set in terms of notability. Since it's the main reason for proposing the deletion, I would think that it's far more logical that an admittedly unimportant hamlet like Hinterschellenberg not receive a Wikipedia page, at the expense of many more well-known and suitable subjects, especially in other parts of the world where population density is low. If you wouldn't mind, I would at least prefer if we could open a discussion in the area so that more editors – if anyone would like to contribute – could talk about this topic more openly. Thanks for your help and assistance. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will reply on the article talkpage Atlantic306 (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks you! Just fyi, I just posted now. Thanks again for your contributions! 198.84.229.179 (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Your help desk question
You have a response.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Dinmore Hill Woods
How is a forest a "populated place?" I added the PROD tag back. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A prod cannot be replaced, please take to AFD. Apologies for the wrong rationale it should have been WP:GEOLAND for a natural feature, and is notable as a preservation status feature.

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Kane Gregory Churko
My apologies, the birth date genuinely threw me off. It looked almost identical at the time. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  Talk   19:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is similar, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

"Former cast members should not be removed"
Re: this, thaaaaaaaank you. I've been battling with the entire nation of India over this very frickin' thing. Unbelievable. It's part of something I've been calling the "Campaign of Ignorance". Without making you read the entire thing, just a lot of bizarre editing choices that seem to revolve around keeping the reader as ignorant and confused as possible. Removing cast names, removing character descriptions, using slashes between multiple character names and using a series of terse parentheticals instead of clear prose... Stuff like:
 * Jane Doe as Judy Smith/Baklava/Judy Parikh (fake name) (2015-2016)(Dead)(Second parallel female Antagonist)

Anyway, wow. Thanks again, take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, am also constantly confused by a number of edits Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

AFD
Hello Jimmy! Can you please give the page Mario Cerrito III a look. McGeddon has it proposed for deletion. Thanks!
 * Not sure if I can comment in the AFD discussion which has to go ahead as per WP:Canvassing, will have to ask Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we make a decision on Mario Cerrito III it's been on AFD since December 8.
 * No, an admin or an experienced editor who has not contributed to the discussion are only allowed to close and make the final decision. Only admins can delete pages as well as keep, etc,while Non Admin Closures are only allowed by trusted, experienced editors who can only keep, merge, redirect or relist. I have not closed any discussions because I have not been around long enough. Its quite common lately for discussions to go on for 3 weeks, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Disney Global Security
Hello,

I've started a merge discussion at Walt Disney World and Disney Global Security. Thank you for your assistance! Neo12345292 (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, will wait for other's opinions before commenting Atlantic306 (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

When a source may not be needed
Hi. Just a heads up before you move/delete articles that lack sources. As per WP:FACTS, especially concerning articles that describe the plots of books, films and other artistic works - the inclusion of sources is not always necessary. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information. Happy Holidays and thanks for your hard work. Veritycheck (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, thats interesting, thought that book articles had to pass WP:GNG as per the guideline WP:NBOOK Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Julie Thompson Klein
Hello, in the bio, you use Klein and Klien, by mistake I suppose.Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski
 * corrected, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Micro Museum
Let's not get into an edit war on this. The Micro Museum article is very much improved with my edits. Your revert resotred a staggering amount (literally dozens) of bad sources. The sources are self-published, or extremely dubious. There is no source in the NYTimes as you suggest-- there was a Times article that mentioned one of the founders. See WP:RS, the sources need to be relaibale, almost two dozen self-published sources are not what you call reliable! Other bad sources that I removed include several personal CV's used as sources.

On an additional note, please do not tell me not to edit the article, as it is an example of WP:OWN. Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia. I am an experienced editor, who just happens to prefer being an IP editor. My router resets periodically, which is why I have a new IP. I am very aware of policies and know a good article when I see one. I am happy to work together.104.163.143.107 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The request not to edit was due to suspicion of COI, but if you are an experienced editor I apologise. However, I disagree with your edits as they removed too much comment so will restore the previous version. As we do not agree perhaps a RFC is needed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)